The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Kerala Government to grant higher pay scales to Higher Secondary School Teacher (HSST), Junior teachers appointed through transfer or promotion, while denying the same benefit to directly recruited teachers.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu dismissed a batch of appeals filed by directly recruited HSST Junior teachers in Kerala government-aided schools. The Court held that the difference in experience between promotee/transferee teachers and direct recruits constituted a valid and intelligible basis for differentiation in pay.
The appellants had been appointed through direct recruitment pursuant to the Government Order dated May 13, 1998. They sought the same full-time pay scale that was being granted to teachers appointed through transfer or promotion.
The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether teachers belonging to the same HSST Junior cadre could be paid differently when their qualifications, duties and responsibilities were otherwise identical.
The Kerala High Court's Single Judge had earlier ruled in favour of the teachers and found discrimination. However, the Division Bench reversed that decision, holding that promoted teachers could not be equated with fresh direct recruits merely because they performed the same work.
The Supreme Court examined the evolution of the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” and noted that the principle cannot be applied mechanically merely because employees perform similar functions.
The Court referred to a line of precedents holding that factors such as source of recruitment, educational qualifications, experience, mode of appointment, responsibilities and accountability can be relevant while determining whether two groups of employees are entitled to identical pay.
The Court reiterated that Article 14 permits reasonable classification where the classification has a rational connection with the objective sought to be achieved. It also noted that merit and experience may constitute legitimate bases for differentiation in pay in service matters.
In the present case, the Supreme Court found that teachers appointed through transfer or promotion had prior experience as full-time permanent teachers in high schools or lower schools.
According to the Court, this prior teaching experience provided a valid and intelligible differentia, having a nexus with the objective of granting them the higher pay scale.
The Court further held that where there is complete parity in all relevant factors, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work can be enforced by a writ court. However, where such parity is absent, identical work alone does not automatically create a right to equal pay.
The Bench also considered a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in State of West Bengal v. Anirban Ghosh, which had been relied upon by the appellants.
The Supreme Court held that the Calcutta High Court decision had not considered all the binding Supreme Court precedents on the doctrine of equal pay for equal work and, to the extent that it was inconsistent with those precedents, it had to be treated as per incuriam.
The Court also clarified that dismissal of the Special Leave Petition challenging that decision could not, by itself, require the Supreme Court to take a different view.
Concluding that the two groups of teachers could not claim equivalence in terms of teaching experience, the Supreme Court held that the distinction in pay scales was legally sustainable.
The Court accordingly declined to interfere with the Kerala High Court's Division Bench judgment and dismissed the appeals.
Case: G.P. Sangeetha & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. along with Sharafudden M. v. Indu T.K. & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 1004
Civil Appeal Nos.: 7565-7567 of 2011 and 9060 of 2011
Judgment: September 8, 2026
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu.
Representation:-
For Appellant(s) : Mr. V Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Benoy Thomas, Adv. Mr. K. Rajeev, AOR Mr. Rahul Narang, Adv. Ms. Niveditha R Menon, Adv. Mr. Aditya Verma, Adv. Mr. Tarun Kumar, Adv. Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jose Abraham, AOR Mr. Anto G Robert, Adv. Ms. Neya A.s., Adv. Mr. Basil Jaison, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shibu Devasia Olickal, AOR Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Ms. Anu K Joy, Adv. Mr. Santhosh K, Adv. Mrs. Devika A.l., Adv. Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, AOR Mr. Harikumar V., Mr. Romy Chacko, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashwin Romy, Adv. Mr. Sachin Singh Dalal, Adv. Mr. Akshat Singh, Adv. Mr. Anup Kumar, AOR Mr. P. A. Noor Muhamed, AOR
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy